THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK TO INTERFERE FREE SPEECH AND TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PRACTICE

Öz

The right to free speech is an indispensable part of human rights which promotes the values such as democracy, self-fulfilment, the marketplace for ideas/search for truth, tolerance, and pluralism. These values reflect the interrelation between the right to free speech and other rights. Speech act has a consequentialist nature and might create harm to or conflict with the rights of others. This means the right to free speech is a qualified right rather than an absolute one. The process of limiting free speech is not well defined and tends to bear different meanings and necessities based on the situation, time, and place. The consequentialist nature of the speech act is subject to intervention. There are various theoretical justifications for why and how to make legitimate interventions on the right to free speech. Thus, harm, danger, threat, or crime caused by speech can be prevented based on theoretical justifications such as the militant democracy, the conflict of liberties, the true threat test, the clear and present danger test, the harm principle, and criminalising speech. First, these justifications will be evaluated. Following, Turkish jurisdiction is assessed as a case considering these justifications and to analyse how Turkish constitutional law justifies restricting the right to free speech.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Freedom of Speech
• Justifications to Interfere
• Turkish Constitutional Law

İfade Özgürlüğünün Kısıtlanmasının Teorik Çerçevesi ve Türk Anayasa Hukukundaki Uygulaması

Öz

İfade özgürlüğü diğer hakların uygulanmasının ayrılmaz bir parçası olarak demokrasi, bireyin kendini gerçekleştirmesi, fikirler piyasası/doğrunun arayışı, tolerans ve çoğulculuk gibi değerlerin gerçekleşmesini sağlamaktadır. Bu değerler ifade özgürlüğü ve diğer hakların karşılıklı ilişkisini yansıtması açısından çok önemlidir. Gerek bu ilişki gerekse de ifadelerin sonuçsal doğası sebebiyle ifadeler zarar, tehlike, tehdit, suç veya diğer haklarla bir çatışma doğurabilmektedir. Bunun anlamı ifade özgürlüğünün mutlak bir hak olmaktan ziyade kısıtlı/şartlı bir hak olması anlamına gelmektedir. Bu minvalde meşru bir kısıtlamanın yapılabilmesi için farklı yargı sistemlerince teorik gerekçeler geliştirilmiştir. İfade özgürlüğünün sınırlandırılma süreci yer, zaman, ve durum gibi unsurlara bağlı olarak farklı anlam ve bağlamda kullanılabilmektedir. İfadelerin sonuçsal doğası gereği sınırlandırılabilir olduğu bir gerçekliktir. Tüm bu nedenlerle, ifadelerin zarar, tehlike, tehdit veya suç oluşturmaları halinde nasıl sınırlanabileceği sorunsalı militan demokrasi, özgürlükler arası çatışma, açık ve mevcut tehlike testi, gerçek tehlike testi ve zarar prensibi gibi prensipler/gerekçeler ile değerlendirilmiştir. Ayrıca Türk Anayasa hukuku bir olay çalışması olarak, tarihsel olarak öne çıkan bu prensipler/gerekçeler dikkate alınarak değerlendirilmektedir. Turk hukuk sisteminin ifade özgürlüğünü hangi teorik gerekçelere dayandırdığı ele alınması gereken bir husutur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İfade Özgürlüğü
• Kısıtlama Gerekçeleri
• Türk Anayasa Hukuku

Kaynakça

1. Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)
2. Acar Bulent, ‘Hukuk Düzenimizde Düsüncenin Acıklanmasının Cezalandırılması ve Cezalandırmanın Sınırı’ (1995) 3 Ankara Barosu Dergisi 14-45
3. Aernout Niewenhuis, ‘Freedom of Speech: USA vs Germany and Europe’ (2000) 18 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights
4. Alacakaptan Uğur, ‘Demokratik Anayasa ve Ceza Kanunu`nun 141 ve 142`inci Maddeleri’ (1966) 1 Ankara Hukuk Fakultesi Dergisi 3-20
5. Alemdar Zeynep, ‘’Modelling’ for Democracy? Turkey’s Historical Issues with Freedom of Speech’ (2014) 50 Middle Eastern Studies 568-588
6. Arne Ohman, `Fear and Anxiety as Emotional Phenomena: Clinical Phenomenology, Evolutionary Perspectives, and Information-Processing Mechanisms, in Handbook of Emotions` (Michael Lewis & Jeanette M. Haviland, 1993)
7. Austin J. L., How to Do Things with Words (OUP, 1962)
8. Bakan, S. ve Çimen, H. ‘Türkiye’de Askeri Darbe Statükosunun Kurulmasi’ (2017) 6(2) İnönü Üniversitesi Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 1-15.

9. Baker C. Edwin, ‘Harm, Liberty, and Free Speech’ (1979) 70 Southern California Law Review 979-1020
10. Barendt Eric, Freedom of Speech (UOP, second Ed, 2005)
11. Birks Peter (ed), Pressing Problems in the Law, vol 1 (OUP 1995)
12. Bork H. Robert, ‘Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems’ (1971) 47 Indiana Law Journal 1-35
13. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 447
14. Cengiz İlyas Fırat, Legal Responses to ‘Terroristic Speech’: An Evaluation of Turkey’s Law in The Light of ECtHR And UNHRC Standards (Adalet Yayınevi, 2022)
15. Claire L’Heureux-Dube, ‘The Importance of Dialogue: Globalization and the International Impact of the Rehnquist Court’ (1998) 34 Tulsa Law Journal 15-40
16. Cohen-Almagor Raphael, Liberal Democracy and the Limits of Tolerance: Essays in Honor and Memory of Yitzhak Rabin (The University of Michigan Press, 2000)
17. Communist Party (KPD) v. the Federal Republic of Germany
18. Coşkun Vahap, ‘Turkey`s Illiberal Judiciary: Cases and Decisions’ (2010) 12 Insight Turkey 43-67
19. David Feldman, ‘Content Neutrality’ in Loveland I (ed), Importing the First Amendment: Freedom of Expression in American, English and European Law (Hart Publishing, 1998)
20. Dennis v. United States 341 U.S. 495 (1951)
21. Dudley R., ‘A Reformulation of the Harm Principle’ (1978) 6 Political Theory 233-246
22. Feinberg, J., Freedom and Fulfilment: Philosophical Essays – The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law (Princeton University Press 1992)
23. Feinberg, J., Harmless Wrongdoing – The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law (Oxford University Press, 1988) xix.
24. Feinberg, J., Offence to Others: The Moral limits of Criminal Law (OUP, 1985) IX.
25. Fish, S., There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech…and it’s a good thing too. (New York: Oxford University Press 1994)
26. Geoffrey R Stone, Louis M Seidman, Cass R Sunstein and Mark V Tushnet, `Constitutional Law` (New York, Aspen Law & Business, 1996)
27. Glendon Mary Ann, Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse (Northampton, The Free Press, 1991)
28. Greenawalt Kent, Speech, Crime, and the Uses of Language (OUP, 1989)
29. Greenawalt, Kent, ‘Speech and Crime’ (1980) 5(4) American Bar Foundation Research Journal 645–785
30. Hans Linde, ‘Clear and Present Danger Re-examined: Dissonance in the Brandenburg Concerto’ (1970) 22 Stan. L. Rev. 1163-1186
31. Heyman J. Steven, Free Speech and Human Dignity (Yale University Press 2008)
32. Hugo L Black, A Constitutional Faith (New York, Knopf, 1968)
33. Jeremy Waldron, Liberal Rights; Collected Papers 1981-1991 (CUP 1993)
34. John E Nowak and Ronald D Rotunda, Constitutional Law (St Paul, West Group, 2000)
35. Justice Black in Koningsberg v. State Bar, 366 US 36 (1961)
36. Kalven Harry, A Worthy Tradition: Freedom of Speech in America (New York: Harper and Row, 1987)
37. Karagoz Kasım, ‘The Dissolution of Political Parties Under the Jurisdiction of The European Court of Human Rights and Examining the Case of Welfare Party According to the Venice Commission Reports’ (2006) 1 Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 311-348
38. Karaoğlu Ali Osman, ‘Margin of Appreciation as a Hindrance to Transformative Impact of International Law: Change in Interpretation of Laicism by Turkish Constitutional Court’ (2020) 20 Law & Justice Review, 163-193.
39. Kasapsaraçoğlu Murat, ‘Soğuk Savaş Döneminde Türkiye’de Yapılan Askeri Darbeler ve ABD’ (2020) 19(3) Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences 1342-1356.
40. Kurzon Dennis, ‘The Speech Act Status of Incitement: Perlocutionary Acts Revisited’ (1998) 29 Journal of Pragmatics 571-591
41. Loewenstein Karl, ‘Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights’ (1937) 31 the American Political Science Review 417-432
42. Macklem Patrick, ‘Militant Democracy, Legal Pluralism, and the Paradox of Self-determination’ (2006) 4 International Journal of Constitutional Law 488-516
43. Mango Andrew, Turkey and the War on Terror: For Forty Years We Fought Alone (London: Routledge, 2005)
44. McCloskey H.J, ‘Liberty of Expression: Its Ground and Limits (I)’ (1970) 13 Inquiry 219-237
45. Mill J.M., On Liberty (fist published 1859, Batoch Books 2001)
46. Mueller, G.O.W. (ed.), Essays in Criminal Science (Sweet & Maxwell Ltd 1961)
47. Örnek Cangül ‘Türk Ceza Kanunu’nun 141 ve 142. Maddelerine İlişkin Tartışmalarda Devlet ve Sınıflar’ (2014) 69(1) Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi 109-139
48. Özbudun Ergun, ‘State Elites and Democratic Political Culture in Turkey’ in ed. Larry Diamond, Political Culture and Democracy in Developing Countries (Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1993)
49. Özbudun Ergun, ‘Türk Anayasa Mahkemesinin Yargısal Aktivizmi ve Siyasal Elitlerin Tepkisi’ (2007) 63 Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 257-268
50. Özhan H.Ali, and Özipek B.Berat, Yargıtay Kararlarında İfade Özgürlüğü (LDT, 2003)
51. Paçaçı İrfan, ‘1982 Anayasası Mayınlı Alanı: Düşünce Özgürlüğü, Anayasa MAdde 25 ve 26’nın Analz ve Yorumu’ (1995-1996) 21(17-18) TODAIE İnsan Hakları Yıllığı 127-149
52. Persak Nina, Criminalising Harmful Conduct the Harm Principle, its Limits and Continental Counterparts (Springer 2007)
53. Philip S. Foner, History of the Labour Movement in the United States (New World Paperbacks 1980)
54. Pierre-Henri Teitgen, ‘Introduction to the European Convention on Human Rights’ in RStJ Macdonald, F Matscher and H Petzold, The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (Leiden/Boston, Martinus Nijhoff, 1993)
55. Robertson AH., Human Rights in Europe (Manchester University Press, 1963)
56. Rotiman Jennifer E., ‘Freedom of Speech and True Threats’ (2011-2012) 25 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 283-367
57. Sadurski Wojciech, Freedom of Speech and Its Limits (Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001)
58. Scanlon Thomas, ‘A Theory of Freedom of Expression’ (1972) 1 Philosophy & Public Affairs 204-226
59. Schauer, Frederick, ‘Must Speech Be Special’ (1983) 78 Northwestern University Law Review 1284-1306
60. Schenck v. United Stated, 249 US at 48-49 (1919)
61. Smet Stijn, ‘Freedom of Expression and the Right to Reputation: Human Rights in Conflict’ (2010) 26 American University International Law Review 183-236
62. Sottiaux Stefan, Terrorism and the Limitations of Rights: the ECHR and the US Constitution (Hart Publishing 2008)
63. Tanör Bülent, Siyasi Düşünce Hürriyeti ve 1961 Türk Anaysası (Phd Thesis, Oncu Kitabevi, 1969)
64. TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, 106. Birleşim, 11/04/1991
65. TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, Dönem 21/3, 132. Birleşim, 25.9.2001
66. Turhan Mehmet, ‘Düşünce Özgürlüğü ve 1982 Anayasası’ 1988 4(4) Dicle Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 87-117
67. Turkish Constitutional Court, Judgment No. E.1963/173 K.1965/40, 26/09/1965
68. Turkish Constitutional Court, Judgment No. E.2012/65 K.2012/128, 20.09.2012
69. Turkish Constitutional Court, Judgment No. 2013/2602, 23/01/2014
70. Thiel Markus, The `Militant Democracy` Principle in Modern Democracies (Ashgate, 2009)
71. Trager R. and Dickerson D.L., Freedom of Expression in the 21st Century (Pine Forge Press 1999)
72. Vernon H. Jensen, Heritage of Conflict (Cornell University Press 1950)
73. Yargıtay Assembly of Criminal Chamber 2004/8-130 E., 2004/206 K., 23/11/2004
74. Yargıtay Assembly of Criminal Chamber 2007/8-244 E, 2008/92 K. 29/04/2008 
75. Yargıtay 9. Criminal Chamber, E.2010 / 4243 K.2012 / 1683, 08.02.2012
76. Yargıtay 8. Criminal Chamber, E.2012/882 K.2012/6067, 10.05.2012
77. Yargıtay 8. Criminal Chamber, E. 2009/13825, K. 2012/23385, 04.07.2012
78. Yargıtay 8. Criminal Chamber, E.2013/1567 K.2013/5627, 15.02.2013
79. Zechariah Chafee, Jr. ‘Freedom of Speech in War Time’ (1919) 32 Harvard Law Review 932-973
80. Zedner Lucia, ‘Pre-crime and Post Criminology’ (2007) 11 Theoretical Criminology 261-281
81. Zühtü Arslan, ‘Türki̇ye’de İsti̇sna Hâli̇, Terör Ve İfade Özgürlüğü’ (2007) 71 Tbb Dergisi 201-226